Probably a frequently-asked question.

I know there are various apps around that are supposed to do this, but when
I have tried demos so far, I haven't got very good results.

Has anyone had success with any of these programs? Well, I'm sure none are
perfect, but are you able to get a reasonably accurate MIDI file of the
audio file?

Which of these programs do you think work best?

MS wrote:

> Probably a frequently-asked question.

Plse check then in Google - Groups

> 
> I know there are various apps around that are supposed to do this, but
> when I have tried demos so far, I haven't got very good results.
> 
> Has anyone had success with any of these programs? Well, I'm sure none are
> perfect, but are you able to get a reasonably accurate MIDI file of the
> audio file?
> 
> Which of these programs do you think work best?

None

Herman Viaene

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 04:32:12 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>Probably a frequently-asked question.

Yup.  <yawn> :-)
>
>I know there are various apps around that are supposed to do this, but when
>I have tried demos so far, I haven't got very good results.

And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
this is one place you still need them.
   
   CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
 "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Are you referring to programs that will turn a music recording (like a
funky band) into a midi file, or perhaps something that turn the sound
of your voice into a violin phrase.  I've been interested in the latter
for years.

yea you import audio into to it or record in it. its really just an
program for autotuning.  it extracts pitch, velocity, and rhythm from
audio and you can then export that as a midi file.
http://www.celemony.com

outstretchedarm@hotmail.com wrote:
> Are you referring to programs that will turn a music recording (like a
> funky band) into a midi file, or perhaps something that turn the sound
> of your voice into a violin phrase.  I've been interested in the latter
> for years.

its worth checking it becuase prgrams that are cutting edge yet crappy,
in a few years actually work.  (like DragonNaturally speaking, which
actually works these days)

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
news:09qd02t4dnrs3iuj2r5itqkf5bt0pahvmo@4ax.com...

> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
> this is one place you still need them.

There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.

No one suggested (at least that I have heard) that an audio to MIDI
converter is any kind of replacement for musical skills. That would be a
ridiculous assertion. However, if there were such a tool that worked at all
decently, it could occasionally be a useful tool.

I'm surprised that in the current state of computer science, that it isn't
possible to do that better. I would never expect such an app to work
perfectly, and of course it would depend on the type of audio one is
converting, but I'm surprised that it doesn't work better than it does, in
this day and age.

Yes, but there have been audio to MIDI programs around for years (including
specific apps that have been around for years, with upgraded versions, etc.,
such as Intelliscore and Digital Ear).

Yet, when I've tried them, I certainly couldn't get any decent results with
the current versions. One would think that such a program would be able to
be more accurate these days, but I haven't seen that yet.

Once again, though, if anyone reading has had good results with such a
program, please tell us about it.

"outstretchedarm" <outstretchedarm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141396149.365051.225970@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> its worth checking it becuase prgrams that are cutting edge yet crappy,
> in a few years actually work.  (like DragonNaturally speaking, which
> actually works these days)
>

Do you find that Melodyne can really create MIDI fairly accurately from
audio, Jeremy?

I tried a demo of it, and I did not get a resulting MIDI file anywhere close
to the audio. I might not have used it the best way, however. (Seems like a
complex program.) Do you have any tips for working on audio-MIDI conversion
with Melodyne?

"jeremy" <rose.jeremy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141379327.952903.299010@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> yea you import audio into to it or record in it. its really just an
> program for autotuning.  it extracts pitch, velocity, and rhythm from
> audio and you can then export that as a midi file.
> http://www.celemony.com
>
> outstretchedarm@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Are you referring to programs that will turn a music recording (like a
> > funky band) into a midi file, or perhaps something that turn the sound
> > of your voice into a violin phrase.  I've been interested in the latter
> > for years.
>

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:21:31 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
>> this is one place you still need them.
>
>There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.

And did I suggest otherwise?

>
>No one suggested (at least that I have heard) that an audio to MIDI
>converter is any kind of replacement for musical skills. That would be a
>ridiculous assertion. However, if there were such a tool that worked at all
>decently, it could occasionally be a useful tool.

If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
skills.

In the meantime, don't forget Transcribe! from
http://www.seventhstring.com/

It offers nothing that isn't offered in an advanced wave editor -
looped playback, filtering, time-stretch, spectrum analysis....    But
it presents them in an ideal way for those of us who need to
transcribe tricky audio material.


>
>I'm surprised that in the current state of computer science, that it isn't
>possible to do that better. I would never expect such an app to work
>perfectly, and of course it would depend on the type of audio one is
>converting, but I'm surprised that it doesn't work better than it does, in
>this day and age.

I imagine there is military research into extracting a single voice
from a babble.  This could spin off into audio > MIDI conversion.    

It may be an urban myth, but I heard that a talented designer with one
of the microphone companies disappeared for a few years recently. The
Army got it's new communications system.  When he returned, a new
generation of frequency-agile radio mics didn't take long to appear.
   
   CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
 "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
news:oqbh02pe4h4ptr02jj2ksf53g6lnjqe2tg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:21:31 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
> >> this is one place you still need them.
> >
> >There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
>
> And did I suggest otherwise?

There was such an implication. Of course not directed at me personally,
since you don't know me, and have no idea of my musical skills. There was an
implication that people would only be interested in such a tool to make up
for deficient musical skills.

> If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
> skills.

There you go again, with the implication that one would only be interested
in such a tool if deficient in musical skills.

I guess one could say that about any tool-that it bypasses skills. Using a
camera is "bypassing your visual skills", etc. An unusual way to look at
tools though.

now now boys...play nice

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:26:10 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>> >There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
>>
>> And did I suggest otherwise?
>
>There was such an implication. Of course not directed at me personally,
>since you don't know me, and have no idea of my musical skills. There was an
>implication that people would only be interested in such a tool to make up
>for deficient musical skills.
>
>> If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
>> skills.
>
>There you go again, with the implication that one would only be interested
>in such a tool if deficient in musical skills.
>
>I guess one could say that about any tool-that it bypasses skills. Using a
>camera is "bypassing your visual skills", etc. An unusual way to look at
>tools though.
>

That's some chip on your shoulder :-)
   
   CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
 "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:26:10 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

May I step in? Peace brothers. <G>

MS, I agree with everything you are saying about the programmes that
have come out. I share your (and Laurence's) attitudes, wishes, and by
now bored disappointment.

But I think Laurence  was simply being ironic about the _programmes_,
not poking at you or even others.

Believe me, there are many of us here who have quite reasonabe musical
skills who have had many years' interest in exactly these programmes.
They could, if they worked, remove the tedium of "transcribing". This
has nothing to do with any skill except dogged patience. That we lack
this is displayed by the fact that after only trialling 20 programmes,
we are bored with failure <G>

I have to agree that any programme that did a really good, fast job of
Audio to MIDI would probably surpass some musical skills, in that it
would do in 5 minutes what it takes quite a skilled person hours to
do.

>
>"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
>news:oqbh02pe4h4ptr02jj2ksf53g6lnjqe2tg@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:21:31 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
>> >> this is one place you still need them.
>> >
>> >There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
>>
>> And did I suggest otherwise?
>
>There was such an implication. Of course not directed at me personally,
>since you don't know me, and have no idea of my musical skills. There was an
>implication that people would only be interested in such a tool to make up
>for deficient musical skills.
>
>> If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
>> skills.
>
>There you go again, with the implication that one would only be interested
>in such a tool if deficient in musical skills.
>
>I guess one could say that about any tool-that it bypasses skills. Using a
>camera is "bypassing your visual skills", etc. An unusual way to look at
>tools though.
>

MS wrote:

> 
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
> news:09qd02t4dnrs3iuj2r5itqkf5bt0pahvmo@4ax.com...
> 
>> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
>> this is one place you still need them.
> 
> There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
> 
> No one suggested (at least that I have heard) that an audio to MIDI
> converter is any kind of replacement for musical skills. That would be a
> ridiculous assertion. However, if there were such a tool that worked at
> all decently, it could occasionally be a useful tool.
> 
> I'm surprised that in the current state of computer science, that it isn't
> possible to do that better. I would never expect such an app to work
> perfectly, and of course it would depend on the type of audio one is
> converting, but I'm surprised that it doesn't work better than it does, in
> this day and age.

Again and again, plse use Google - Groups to search for this subject in the
past (maybe wav to midi would give you more results), but others and myself
have written articles on the subject as to why it is so extremely difficult
for a program to do such converting.
As to why a human can do this, well the most honnest answer you can get is
that we are far, very far, extremely far away from really understanding how
our brain works, so .....

Herman Viaene

Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they will
never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.

Just surprised that there aren't programs that can do this better than what
seems to be their poor current state, even after years that such programs
have been in existence.

"OldNick" <nsremovable@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:6phh025rgu69lum8vvvhgd647grnt6nnso@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:26:10 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> May I step in? Peace brothers. <G>
>
> MS, I agree with everything you are saying about the programmes that
> have come out. I share your (and Laurence's) attitudes, wishes, and by
> now bored disappointment.
>
> But I think Laurence  was simply being ironic about the _programmes_,
> not poking at you or even others.
>
> Believe me, there are many of us here who have quite reasonabe musical
> skills who have had many years' interest in exactly these programmes.
> They could, if they worked, remove the tedium of "transcribing". This
> has nothing to do with any skill except dogged patience. That we lack
> this is displayed by the fact that after only trialling 20 programmes,
> we are bored with failure <G>
>
> I have to agree that any programme that did a really good, fast job of
> Audio to MIDI would probably surpass some musical skills, in that it
> would do in 5 minutes what it takes quite a skilled person hours to
> do.
>
> >
> >"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
> >news:oqbh02pe4h4ptr02jj2ksf53g6lnjqe2tg@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:21:31 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
> >> >> this is one place you still need them.
> >> >
> >> >There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
> >>
> >> And did I suggest otherwise?
> >
> >There was such an implication. Of course not directed at me personally,
> >since you don't know me, and have no idea of my musical skills. There was
an
> >implication that people would only be interested in such a tool to make
up
> >for deficient musical skills.
> >
> >> If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
> >> skills.
> >
> >There you go again, with the implication that one would only be
interested
> >in such a tool if deficient in musical skills.
> >
> >I guess one could say that about any tool-that it bypasses skills. Using
a
> >camera is "bypassing your visual skills", etc. An unusual way to look at
> >tools though.
> >
>

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:25 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they will
>never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.

Agreed.

>
>Just surprised that there aren't programs that can do this better than what
>seems to be their poor current state, even after years that such programs
>have been in existence.

Agreed.
   
   CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
 "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:25 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they will
>never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.

   But they could come pretty close.  But not perhaps without having
something like a true AI, able to analyze like a human.

>Just surprised that there aren't programs that can do this better than what
>seems to be their poor current state, even after years that such programs
>have been in existence.

  Increased computing power isn't enough to make up for a lack of a
good algorithm to use that power on.  There has been quite a lot of
research into signal processing, but the bulk of audio to MIDI is
still pitch recognition.  That is relatively trivial to do, and
software to determine the pitch of a single note -- or of several
notes sounding -- isn't that hard to manage.

  The trick is to turn the measurement of pitch values into music.
Humans would be hard pressed to figure it out given just a printout of
the numbers of the sound spectrum.  How people do it isn't something
easily quantitized.   If that problem was solved, then a program to do
the same thing would be easy.

  But I think that such a program would require something pretty close
to a true thinking AI in order to pull it off.  It isn't a brute force
conversion.

  As soon as we have music programs which can produce and arrange
music intelligently, we might be able to make a program able to
"listen" to music and create comparable arrangements.  I don't expect
such things anytime soon.


>"OldNick" <nsremovable@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>news:6phh025rgu69lum8vvvhgd647grnt6nnso@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:26:10 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> May I step in? Peace brothers. <G>
>>
>> MS, I agree with everything you are saying about the programmes that
>> have come out. I share your (and Laurence's) attitudes, wishes, and by
>> now bored disappointment.
>>
>> But I think Laurence  was simply being ironic about the _programmes_,
>> not poking at you or even others.
>>
>> Believe me, there are many of us here who have quite reasonabe musical
>> skills who have had many years' interest in exactly these programmes.
>> They could, if they worked, remove the tedium of "transcribing". This
>> has nothing to do with any skill except dogged patience. That we lack
>> this is displayed by the fact that after only trialling 20 programmes,
>> we are bored with failure <G>
>>
>> I have to agree that any programme that did a really good, fast job of
>> Audio to MIDI would probably surpass some musical skills, in that it
>> would do in 5 minutes what it takes quite a skilled person hours to
>> do.
>>
>> >
>> >"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dsl.pipexSPAMTRAP.com> wrote in message
>> >news:oqbh02pe4h4ptr02jj2ksf53g6lnjqe2tg@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:21:31 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> And, as the art stands, you won't.   Polish up those musical sklls,
>> >> >> this is one place you still need them.
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no problem with my musical skills, Larry.
>> >>
>> >> And did I suggest otherwise?
>> >
>> >There was such an implication. Of course not directed at me personally,
>> >since you don't know me, and have no idea of my musical skills. There was
>an
>> >implication that people would only be interested in such a tool to make
>up
>> >for deficient musical skills.
>> >
>> >> If there was one that worked, it could indeed bypass certain musical
>> >> skills.
>> >
>> >There you go again, with the implication that one would only be
>interested
>> >in such a tool if deficient in musical skills.
>> >
>> >I guess one could say that about any tool-that it bypasses skills. Using
>a
>> >camera is "bypassing your visual skills", etc. An unusual way to look at
>> >tools though.
>> >
>>
>

-- 
*-__Jeffery Jones__________|  *Starfire*   |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:25 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they will
>never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.
>
>Just surprised that there aren't programs that can do this better than what
>seems to be their poor current state, even after years that such programs
>have been in existence.

I've been using TS-AudioToMIDI for awhile and it does as well as can be
expected for monophonic sound.  None of them can do polyphonics.

I can whistle a tune, and convert it to any instrument, with good
fidelity.

The secret to converting audio to midi, is to get the original studio
tracks, where each instrument is recorded on a separate track. (Assuming
it was recorded in such a professional manner). It is often done
that way, so they can mix it later any way they want.

Then you can run those tracks, through a converter, then merge the
midi tracks, and you will get very good results.

But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.


-- 
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html

On Mon, 06 Mar 2006 14:24:45 GMT, zentara <zentara@highstream.net>
wrote:

>The secret to converting audio to midi, is to get the original studio
>tracks, where each instrument is recorded on a separate track. (Assuming
>it was recorded in such a professional manner). It is often done
>that way, so they can mix it later any way they want.
>
>Then you can run those tracks, through a converter, then merge the
>midi tracks, and you will get very good results.
>
>But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
>so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.

Which company DID release the multitrack?  Of what song?   Did you
actually do this?   May we hear one of your results posted somewhere
please?
   
   CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
 "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

I've worked in the recording industry as a sound engineer and even at the 
height of the multitrack technique generally groups of instruments are 
recorded to a track, so you will get a sax track, a stereo drum mix, a 
string track, etc so you are still faced with an extremely complex process 
of first digitising each track and then syncing them and then processing 
them "to midi" . The hours involved would be huge... I don't think so - it's 
all a bit of wish fulfilment fantasy...

Whistle a melody or play one finger on the piano - well yes you can do that. 
But it's still easier and quicker to sit at a midi keyboard and play the 
bloody thing!

The only use I've had for TS-Audio was to 'convert a thunder storm' 
recording to midi!! to inspire me for a soundtrack for a short film I was 
writing - quite useful when you have composition block..


"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message 
news:2tfo025pu8ml9qh3u75c3c86bt67nrf70s@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:25 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they will
>>never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.
>>
>>Just surprised that there aren't programs that can do this better than 
>>what
>>seems to be their poor current state, even after years that such programs
>>have been in existence.
>
> I've been using TS-AudioToMIDI for awhile and it does as well as can be
> expected for monophonic sound.  None of them can do polyphonics.
>
> I can whistle a tune, and convert it to any instrument, with good
> fidelity.
>
> The secret to converting audio to midi, is to get the original studio
> tracks, where each instrument is recorded on a separate track. (Assuming
> it was recorded in such a professional manner). It is often done
> that way, so they can mix it later any way they want.
>
> Then you can run those tracks, through a converter, then merge the
> midi tracks, and you will get very good results.
>
> But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
> so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.
>
>
> -- 
> I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
> http://zentara.net/japh.html 

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:vj9n021s75bdrj7eo95igsceginre4130t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:11:25 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly. No, they
will
> >never replace a trained human ear for musical transcribing.
>
>    But they could come pretty close.  But not perhaps without having
> something like a true AI, able to analyze like a human.

Yes, I would never expect such a program to work perfectly, but perhaps to
come close. Why don't they come close at all?


>   Increased computing power isn't enough to make up for a lack of a
> good algorithm to use that power on.

Well, but computing science has not only improved in the power of CPUs, but
also in algorithms, in software capability, etc.

>There has been quite a lot of
> research into signal processing, but the bulk of audio to MIDI is
> still pitch recognition.  That is relatively trivial to do, and
> software to determine the pitch of a single note -- or of several
> notes sounding -- isn't that hard to manage.

If it isn't hard to manage, why can none of these programs do it half way
decently? One would think if the programs can hear pitches, they should also
be able to hear relative lengths of different pitches, and be able to
somewhat reproduce the music. (Of course the timbres would be different,
using synth instruments.) True, to convert that to readable music notation
is still another whole area of complexity. But to convert to MIDI files that
can aurally reproduce the pitches and rhythms--that doesn't involve much
more than pitch and time recognition, no?


>   As soon as we have music programs which can produce and arrange
> music intelligently, we might be able to make a program able to
> "listen" to music and create comparable arrangements.  I don't expect
> such things anytime soon.

Well, that's a different issue entirely. There are programs that can create
decent accompaniment arrangements (Band in a Box, for example), although of
course not just from listening to the music. But no matter how far that
advances, that can never replace human arrangers, composers, etc., because a
machine doesn't have the creativity, feeling, spirit, etc, that a human
being has.

"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:2tfo025pu8ml9qh3u75c3c86bt67nrf70s@4ax.com...

> But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
> so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.

HaHa. I really doubt that is a major concern of record companies!! ;-)

I don't think that MIDI files could ever replace recorded music. I doubt
record execs stay up at night worrying about pitch to MIDI programs! They
worry much more about sharing of MP3s of the recorded music!

snip a lot ...
> 
> If it isn't hard to manage, why can none of these programs do it half way
> decently? One would think if the programs can hear pitches, they should
> also be able to hear relative lengths of different pitches, and be able to
> somewhat reproduce the music. (Of course the timbres would be different,
> using synth instruments.) True, to convert that to readable music notation
> is still another whole area of complexity. But to convert to MIDI files
> that can aurally reproduce the pitches and rhythms--that doesn't involve
> much more than pitch and time recognition, no?

Yes, it does involve much more.
It would not if you had the music played by instruments which just produced
the pitch you think to hear, and not the multitude of harmonics that go
with these. I - you -anybody that has learned what a violin, altviolin,
cello sounds like, can recognize the parts played by these instruments in a
piece for string orchestra, but I cannot see a program differentiate these
instruments because they will very often play in very nice harmony and thus
the set of harmonics produced by them will largely overlap.

Different instruments produce vastly different sets of harmonics and some
copper instruments (if I remember well trumpet being an example) do not
even produce all notes as "main" pitch of the "note played", but rather a
complex ensemble of harmonics that for our ears "reminds" us of similar
harmonics for this note.

Herman Viaene

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:47:53 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>(Band in a Box, for example), although of
>course not just from listening to the music. But no matter how far that
>advances, that can never replace human arrangers, composers, etc., because a
>machine doesn't have the creativity, feeling, spirit, etc, that a human
>being has.
>

However, set Biab to "composing" a pop ballad.  Then note either how
creatibe it s, or how uncreative most pop composers are :-)

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:47:54 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message
>news:2tfo025pu8ml9qh3u75c3c86bt67nrf70s@4ax.com...
>
>> But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
>> so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.
>
>HaHa. I really doubt that is a major concern of record companies!! ;-)
>
>I don't think that MIDI files could ever replace recorded music. I doubt
>record execs stay up at night worrying about pitch to MIDI programs! They
>worry much more about sharing of MP3s of the recorded music!
>

I wouldn't be so sure. There are currently discussions whether making
a midi (and distributing it) of a song infringes on the copyright of the
writers of the lyric.

With a high quality soundbank and a good card, you can make a midi that
sounds so good, that most untrained listeners cannot tell the
difference, except there are no lyrics. :-)

Of course, with all the new high bandwidth connections, and huge
miniature solid state memory available, mp3's are favored over midi,
but I still claim that IF such high quality individually recorded tracks
were in the possesion of a music company, they would not freely let
people make midis from them.  For economic reasons.




-- 
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html

"MS" wrote:
> "Jeffery S. Jones" wrote:
>
>> There has been quite a lot of
>> research into signal processing, but the bulk of audio to MIDI is
>> still pitch recognition.  That is relatively trivial to do, and
>> software to determine the pitch of a single note -- or of several
>> notes sounding -- isn't that hard to manage.
>
> If it isn't hard to manage, why can none of these programs do it half
> way decently? One would think if the programs can hear pitches, they 
> should also be able to hear relative lengths of different pitches, and 
> be able to somewhat reproduce the music.

Consider a single tone coming from an instrument. Now, when you analyze
this tone, you find that it is made up of many individual tones. In
fact, you can break down any sound into its constituent tones. These
tones are called sine waveforms. I'm vastly over simplifying this, but
the amplitudes and frequencies (and how said amplitudes and frequencies
evolve over time) are what gives an instrument its character. For
example, a clarinet's harmonics that are odd multiples of the
fundamental frequency have a tendency to be stronger than the even ones.
This is what gives a clarinet its hollow, rounded sound.

Say you analyze the waveform of several instruments playing together.
You have all of this frequency information, all of these sine waveforms.
Which sine waveforms belong to which instrument? If you could just
identify the fundamental frequency that each instrument is playing at
any given moment, then you could ignore the rest of the frequencies and
run with that information. But how do you decide what to ignore? There's
going to be a lot of overlap between the instruments, and you risk
losing something important in the process when you throw any information
away. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a very hard problem.

zentara wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:47:54 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I wouldn't be so sure. There are currently discussions whether making
>> a midi (and distributing it) of a song infringes on the copyright of the
>> writers of the lyric.
>>
>> With a high quality soundbank and a good card, you can make a midi that
>> sounds so good, that most untrained listeners cannot tell the
>>
>>     

Yes I would have to agree with this.  I use a yamaha SW1000XG sound card 
to produce pro backing MIDI tracks suitable for use in gigs..  With the 
right patches and effects you can get a professional sounding MIDI file 
that almost sounds as good (and sometimes even better) than the original 
track.  And the beauty of a MIDI is that you can adjust any sound 
individually whereas you can not do that easily with an MP3......

Just my 2�   8-)

"Paul Williamson" <wf1000xg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:121kr0bfeho9o53@corp.supernews.com...
> Yes I would have to agree with this.  I use a yamaha SW1000XG sound card
> to produce pro backing MIDI tracks suitable for use in gigs..  With the
> right patches and effects you can get a professional sounding MIDI file
> that almost sounds as good (and sometimes even better) than the original
> track.  And the beauty of a MIDI is that you can adjust any sound
> individually whereas you can not do that easily with an MP3......
>
> Just my 2�   8-)

Completely different thing. As I wrote, MIDI is a useful tool for musicians.
(For example, this thread is posted to two newsgroups devoted to MIDI. I
would guess that 99.999999% of the readers/posters here are musicians of
some type, including amateurs, people involved in music creation. I doubt
many read here because they like to listen to MIDI files!)

So, when you listen to music at home for the joy of it, do you put on some
MIDI files?

Once again, I greatly doubt that is a major concern of the record companies.
MIDI is a useful tool for musicians, composers, etc. MIDI files are never
going to replace recorded music for listening. No way.

If people want to pirate music, they can easily download MP3s of whatever
music they want. They are not going to bother with getting recordings of
individual tracks from a performance, use a pitch to midi converter to
attempt to convert that to MIDI (which would involve much fixing
afterwards), and then put those tracks together to make a MIDI file, and
listen to that rather than the original recorded track. No way that would
ever become a common practice. I doubt the record executives are quaking in
their boots over MIDI files!





"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message
news:0g6j12dn8q1dkrpf05m3m1lmrdbjdlqdd6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:47:54 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"zentara" <zentara@highstream.net> wrote in message
> >news:2tfo025pu8ml9qh3u75c3c86bt67nrf70s@4ax.com...
> >
> >> But most recording companies are not going to release those tracks,
> >> so midi-makers can undercut their sales with free midis.
> >
> >HaHa. I really doubt that is a major concern of record companies!! ;-)
> >
> >I don't think that MIDI files could ever replace recorded music. I doubt
> >record execs stay up at night worrying about pitch to MIDI programs! They
> >worry much more about sharing of MP3s of the recorded music!
> >
>
> I wouldn't be so sure. There are currently discussions whether making
> a midi (and distributing it) of a song infringes on the copyright of the
> writers of the lyric.
>
> With a high quality soundbank and a good card, you can make a midi that
> sounds so good, that most untrained listeners cannot tell the
> difference, except there are no lyrics. :-)
>
> Of course, with all the new high bandwidth connections, and huge
> miniature solid state memory available, mp3's are favored over midi,
> but I still claim that IF such high quality individually recorded tracks
> were in the possesion of a music company, they would not freely let
> people make midis from them.  For economic reasons.
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
> http://zentara.net/japh.html

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:08:55 GMT, "MS" <ms@nospam.com> wrote:

>Once again, I greatly doubt that is a major concern of the record companies.
>MIDI is a useful tool for musicians, composers, etc. MIDI files are never
>going to replace recorded music for listening. No way.
>
>If people want to pirate music, they can easily download MP3s of whatever
>music they want. They are not going to bother with getting recordings of
>individual tracks from a performance, use a pitch to midi converter to
>attempt to convert that to MIDI (which would involve much fixing
>afterwards), and then put those tracks together to make a MIDI file, and
>listen to that rather than the original recorded track. No way that would
>ever become a common practice. I doubt the record executives are quaking in
>their boots over MIDI files!

Ok, I'll be quiet now.... you have me quaking in my boots. :-)

Just for fun, I download a pure guitar sample wav, and converted it.
Courtesy of
http://www.zero-g.co.uk/index.cfm?articleid=183

The wav, mp3 and mid files can be had at
http://www.zentara.net/sounds/

for a fun comparison.

There is no doubt that the midi needs touching up, but it's pretty good
considering all it took to make was just a button click.  Plus the midi
could be changed to other instruments, adjusted in tempo, etc, etc, in
case you wanted to use it in your band as a backup track. 

So don't you think the people at zero-g would consider a lawsuit,
if I took their cd, converted them all to midi, and used them as
backup in  my songs? Let alone hand them out to my pals for them
to use? 

They probably wouldn't give a damn, until one of the songs hit high
on the charts, or I started making alot of club-money.  then they would
want their share.

But I agree, for the most part, it is no threat to them.  First because
most music is not available as single-intrument tracks, and mp3's
are a bigger threat. 



-- 
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
http://zentara.net/japh.html